Evidentiary issue; Relevance; MRE 402; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; Self-defense or defense of others jury instruction; Prosecutorial misconduct; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to the alleged prosecutorial misconduct; Motion for an adjournment; Sentencing; Scoring of PRV 1; Scoring of OVs 3 & 9

The court held that: (1) the trial court “did not abuse its discretion by not permitting testimony about an alleged sexual relationship between” defendant’s minor stepson (CE) and the victim, by denying defendant’s request for a self-defense or defense of others instruction, or by denying his request for an adjournment; (2) because “there was no prosecutorial misconduct, defense counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failure to object to the purported misconduct”; and (3) the trial court did not err in assessing 75 points for PRV 1 and 10 points for OV 9, but did err in scoring OV 3 at 5 points when it should have assessed 0 points, although he was not entitled to resentencing. He was convicted of aggravated assault and resisting or obstructing a police officer. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 806 days to 15 years for resisting and obstructing and 81 days in jail for misdemeanor aggravated assault. Defendant sought to admit evidence that CE “had a sexual relationship with the victim and that CE’s sexual relationship with someone else caused the victim to go into a rage, leading to a fight between the victim and CE. The trial court determined that this testimony was irrelevant and refused to allow questions about this purported sexual relationship. Given the highly prejudicial and potentially misleading nature of evidence regarding sexual conduct, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.” The court found that the “evidence would also have had little bearing on whether defendant assaulted the victim. Furthermore, CE was permitted to testify that the victim assaulted and kicked him and that the victim had been drinking.” Also, the “trial court denied a self-defense or defense of others instruction because defendant repeatedly told police that he did not touch the victim and because defendant’s stepson testified that he was responsible for the victim’s injuries.” He contended “that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a self-defense or defense of others instruction because he was heard on a 911 call indicating that someone struck his son.” That statement was “insufficient to demonstrate that defendant witnessed an assaultive event between the victim and his stepson or otherwise acquired an honest and reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to protect his stepson.” Affirmed.